Print Page | Close Window

GRADUATE Already, God Damnit!!!!

Printed From: Official RAZZIEŽ Forum
Category: FORUMS on NON-NOMINATED 2008 RELEASES w/LYNX!
Forum Name: HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL 3
Forum Discription: The Turd Entry in a Series We Were Sick of Halfway Thru the FIRST Film!!
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3175
Printed Date: September 23 2014 at 3:41am


Topic: GRADUATE Already, God Damnit!!!!
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: GRADUATE Already, God Damnit!!!!
Date Posted: October 19 2008 at 12:10pm

HOW CAN THEY EXPECT ANYONE to BUY a FULL-PRICE DVD of the http://www.imdb.com/find?s=tt&q=High+School+Musical&x=15&y=9 - , WHEN BOTH of ITS LAME PREDECESSORS DEBUTED on CABLE for FREE?!?!?

WHO DO THEY THINK THEIR AUDIENCES ARE, HOPELESSLY HUNG UP TEEN-AGED GIRLS with MEGA-CRUSHES on ZAC EFRON...

OH WAIT, THAT IS the AUDIENCE for THIS TRIPE!   

BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T BITCH, MOAN and KVETCH ABOUT the DEATH of AMERICAN CULTURE as PERSONIFIED by a SERIES of INEPT MUSICALS THAT MAKE TV's http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060010/ - LOOK LIKE MOZART.

FEEL FREE to THROW the FIRST (OR 231st) PUNCH BELOW... 


HIM: "Just think of us as Henry and Eliza...but with acne!!" 

HER: "That's not fair...and I'm no lady!" 




-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: October 19 2008 at 12:49pm

I have to agree, it's so stupid that they had the first two movies on cable for free and then released the third in theaters! It's the same trick as when earlier this year Disney claimed the Hannah Montana/Miley Cryus concert movie would be in theaters for "one week only," then "extended" it after it scored #1 in the B.O. What's worse is that this might be the last film for the six main cast members, but then Disney will milk the series more with a new cast afterwards.

Ugh! Damn stupid preteen girls for eating this sh*t up like it's candy! It might as well be called "Saved By The Bell: The Musical" -- it's just as poorly acted and written.

 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: October 19 2008 at 2:36pm
I can't stand this series. I mentioned this with my friends and here's what I have to say: It's a big ing piece of donkey  shdjnbsadh    Hinduism  bull.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles


Posted By: sportsartist24
Date Posted: October 19 2008 at 3:39pm
I never liked the High School Musical stuff. It was like so lame, like LAMO! I think this is just completely dumb that they chose to release #3 into theaters and not have it shown on cable, like the first two.

-------------
The Mormons were'nt really popular in the beginning, they're now becoming more popular, even in Hollywood.


Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: October 20 2008 at 10:05am

Check out this hilarious video that mocks the first movie in the High School Musical series:  

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1GH92mv1cg - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1GH92mv1cg  



-------------


Posted By: moat
Date Posted: October 20 2008 at 6:30pm

That guy in the picture totally missed the top and bottom buttons of his vest.

Which is a clear indicator of this film's quality. Yep.

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: ...or maybe he meant his oversight as some kind of Ultra-Lame Fashion Statement...

 



-------------


Posted By: Berrynoia
Date Posted: October 21 2008 at 10:38am

"GRADUATE ALREADY!"???  Be careful what you say, because if they graduate, we get to look forward to College Musical!

BTW, there was an episode of Lewis Black's "Root of All Evil" which was about Disney vs. Scientology, and Disney was declared the Root of All Evil.  Two of the many reasons for the verdict: Hannah Montana...and High School Musical.



-------------


Posted By: tomsmo35
Date Posted: October 21 2008 at 11:35am
I guess I don't bleam Disney they see there is a built audience for High School Musical, so I guess why not try to make some money off The Tweens like they did with Hannah Montana in 3D.


Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: October 21 2008 at 12:53pm

That's what I was gonna say! Me and my cousin were making jokes about how these movies will keep coming 'til they make Retirement Home Musical!

Originally posted by Berrynoia

"GRADUATE ALREADY!"???  Be careful what you say, because if they graduate, we get to look forward to College
Musical
!


BTW, there was an episode of Lewis Black's "Root of All Evil" which was about Disney vs. Scientology, and Disney was declared the Root of All Evil. Two of the many reasons for the verdict: Hannah Montana...and High School Musical.

 



-------------


Posted By: dipitlow555
Date Posted: October 21 2008 at 2:58pm

These movies are gonna keep going, with new characters while these characters go to college.

And I will be seeing this one, just to see how it is.



-------------


Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: October 21 2008 at 8:12pm
Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

I can't stand this series. I mentioned this with my friends and here's what I have to say: It's a big ing piece of donkey  shdjnbsadh    Hinduism  bull.




You sir win at life.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: October 22 2008 at 7:31am

What I hate about live-action Disney is how they recast the same six actresses in everything they make, whether it's a TV series, TV movie, or theatrical movie. They did it with Lindsay Lohan, Hilary Duff, Christy Romaro, and now they're doing it with Raven, Brenda Song, and Miley Cryus. Disney must be really cheap to have to hire the same talent over and over again...or they are just too scared to use actresses who don't already have fan bases?? 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: My guess would be that when they sign any new "talent," they put them under a contract giving Disney first dibs on their careers until they no longer have careers...

 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 22 2008 at 9:29am

The series isn't that bad. I saw the first movie in the summer, and I found it really entertaining.

Anyway, it's OK for The Simpsons to make a movie, and not this?



-------------


Posted By: Movie Man
Date Posted: October 23 2008 at 3:37am
Be careful what you wish for, HeadRAZZberry -- this isn't the last HSM movie (at least with this current cast).

Disney is planning a fourth "High School Musical" with an all new-cast, plus some recurring roles (from the teacher staff) for release next year. And there's also a "Hannah Montana" theatrical movie planned for April.

So the attack of the Disney tweens (pincesses-in-training?) is not done yet (Not even Selena Gomez has had her movie close-up yet, except in a direct-to-DVD release)...


-------------


Posted By: wetbandit82
Date Posted: October 23 2008 at 8:50am

They clearly forget Walt's dictum when aiming so narrowly like this:  Walt aimed to make films for EVERYONE, not just adolescents who can't add 3 and 5 properly in the first place.  And there's a good reason he rarely did sequels, and this is exactly why:  no fulfillment.  Someone needs to get through to Iger that he may be making bucks now, but people will forget about it all a decade from now. 



Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: October 23 2008 at 12:09pm
Originally posted by wetbandit82

They clearly forget Walt's dictum when aiming so
narrowly like this:  Walt aimed to make films for EVERYONE, not just
adolescents who can't add 3 and 5 properly in the first place.  And there's a
good reason he rarely did sequels, and this is exactly why:  no fulfillment. 
Someone needs to get through to Iger that he may be making bucks now,
but people will forget about it all a decade from now. 


The only Disney sequel can think of that was an actually "good" movie is
Toy Story 2.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: October 23 2008 at 3:29pm

Everyone has said something very true.

1. Disney never made sequels during his time. Wow, 40 years after his death, all his company makes now are cheap straight to DVD sequels of every movie that was made under his supervision. I'm sure he's been rolling over in his grave for some time now.

2. Yes, Disney finds preteen girls, gives just enough sex appeal that they boarderline as jailbait, and reuse them time and time again, to the point they control their "careers". Then, when the girls want out they pose in some men's magazine, and they are freed from their contacts ... only to have their careers go down the drain, ie. Lindsay Lohan and Hilary Duff.

3. Yes, there will be more HSM movies, just with a different cast. So, in a way, it will be just like "Saved By The Bell", milking the idea for everything it's worth.

And as to why it's okay for The Simpsons to have a theather movie and not HSM, it's dirt simple. Simpsons have lasted the test of time, being on air for 20 years now. They are perment icons in American pop culture. HSM is just the flavor of the month. Along with Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brothers, teens will forget all about it once Disney finds the next trend for kids to worship and spend their parents' money on. And just because one good, successful movie is made, doesn't mean it should spawn sequels like a rabbit in heat.

PS: Speaking of spawning sequels like a rabbit in heat, Spider-Man creator Stan Lee said in a recent interview that he predicts the Spider-Man movie series will be like the superhero equal of James Bond, ie. having 20+ movies over the course of decades to come. YIKES! 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: A minor point when your overall arguments are sound, but yes, during his lifetime, Walt Disney did do sequels: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054594/ - THE ABSENT-MINDED PROFESSOR was followed up by http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057518/ - SON OF FLUBBER , and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058355/ - THE MISADVENTURES OF MERLIN JONES was succeeded by http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059462/ - THE MONKEY'S UNCLE ... 

 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: October 23 2008 at 10:29pm

The powers that be are simply testing us...after giving us George H.W. and George W. for free, they want to see if we are dumb enough to pay for Jeb....In the name of all that is good and worthy in the world, avoid this movie...

Now...leave me alone for awhile so I can go look at my Hannah Montana calendar and have "dirty old man" thoughts...



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: RoadDogXVIII
Date Posted: October 24 2008 at 7:11am
While I doubt this movie should be in discussion (at RottenTomates.com, it holds a 60% average, and even trusted reviewer Brian Orndrof likes it), I highly hold you in the most esteem ever, HeadRAZZ, for putting the effort in.

Heck, I read the user reviews on IMDB.com, and they all share one thing in common: High School Musical is a negative portrayal of high school life. There's only pretty white and black kids in this film, with nary a normal-looking kid in sight. Now that may not be a problem if it has the gully to satirize it (the first Scary Movie was a slapstick fest, but it made pointed observations about crappy horror films featuring actors/actresses too old for the parts of teenagers), but because the whole endeavor is taken so seriously, anyone who's opposite on screen will have a negative outlook on life.

The second point is that Zac Efron and Vanessa Anne Hudgens are the least talented actors and actresses ever, and they're among the lines of overrated talentless teenagers coming out of the Disney Channel factory. Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if Efron winds up becoming the next Hayden Christensen (an insult to Christensen himself), and Mila Kunis looks ten zillion times more beautiful than Hudgens... AND SHE CAN ACT (there can be redemption after Max Payne). The fact that everyone looks up to these two crackers - along with Hannah Montana (or Miley Cyrus, or whatever she is these days) and the Jonas Brothers - is disheartening to the normal people out there who'll feel rejected because they are wise enough not to fall for this junk.

It makes me sick, and this is coming from someone who wined and dined on Disney films in the past.


-------------
You think you know, but you have no idea.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 24 2008 at 12:25pm

Originally posted by Michaels

And as to why it's okay for The Simpsons to have a theather movie and not HSM, it's dirt simple. Simpsons have lasted the test of time, being on air for 20 years now. They are perment icons in American pop culture. HSM is just the flavor of the month. Along with Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brothers, teens will forget all about it once Disney finds the next trend for kids to worship and spend their parents' money on. And just because one good, successful movie is made, doesn't mean it should spawn sequels like a rabbit in heat.

That's extremely stupid. First of all, you know why everyone is bashing this movie: Because everyone hates the success it's having! It's that simple! These movies aren't even that bad! All of the bashers have never seen these movies, I can tell you that. I saw the first one. IT WASN'T BAD. It was actually entertaining and the songs were really catchy.

Originally posted by RoadDogXVIII

While I doubt this movie should be in discussion (at RottenTomates.com, it holds a 60% average, and even trusted reviewer Brian Orndrof likes it), I highly hold you in the most esteem ever, HeadRAZZ, for putting the effort in.

Heck, I read the user reviews on IMDB.com, and they all share one thing in common: High School Musical is a negative portrayal of high school life. There's only pretty white and black kids in this film, with nary a normal-looking kid in sight. Now that may not be a problem if it has the gully to satirize it (the first Scary Movie was a slapstick fest, but it made pointed observations about crappy horror films featuring actors/actresses too old for the parts of teenagers), but because the whole endeavor is taken so seriously, anyone who's opposite on screen will have a negative outlook on life.

The second point is that Zac Efron and Vanessa Anne Hudgens are the least talented actors and actresses ever, and they're among the lines of overrated talentless teenagers coming out of the Disney Channel factory. Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if Efron winds up becoming the next Hayden Christensen (an insult to Christensen himself), and Mila Kunis looks ten zillion times more beautiful than Hudgens... AND SHE CAN ACT (there can be redemption after Max Payne). The fact that everyone looks up to these two crackers - along with Hannah Montana (or Miley Cyrus, or whatever she is these days) and the Jonas Brothers - is disheartening to the normal people out there who'll feel rejected because they are wise enough not to fall for this junk.

It makes me sick, and this is coming from someone who wined and dined on Disney films in the past.

I don't think HeadRazz actually had guts to put this movie on here. Why? EVERYONE is probably doing the same! I mean, Jesus, this movie had below a 3.0 on IMDb A WEEK or so before the movie was released! That's how much hate it's getting! Even people in my school hates it!

And your complaint about how this is creating a negative potrayal...please, that's just thinking up excuses for bashing this movie. First of all, MOST MOVIES have good looking people. The ONLY things I can think up that actually has diversity is LOST, Magnolia, and Lady in the Water! And this movie is pure fun! Nobody's going to see this and get upset because it's all happy and doesn't show the grim life of high school and emos and bullying and drugs and guns! It's a MUSICAL! It's supposed to be happy, fun, entertaining, etc!

Also, the couple aren't that bad. Have you seen Efron in Hairspray? He's also going to play H.G. Wells (sp?).



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: October 24 2008 at 2:06pm

Originally posted by moviewizguy

That's extremely stupid.

Why is stating the truth "stupid"? I said "The Simpsons" is an iconic series in American entertainment. I don't care how "catchy" the first HSM movie was, people will not be still talking about it 20 or 30 years from now like they do "Grease" or "Rocky Horror Pictures Show".

Seriously, please, if you hate everything we have to say in this forum, do this one little thing. Buy a Razzie membership and VOTE. Don't complain about how "stupid" and "unfair" we are, and VOTE. If you vote, then you will have say in which movies we should be mocking, at least by YOUR standards, whatever they are.



Posted By: RoadDogXVIII
Date Posted: October 24 2008 at 4:48pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Originally posted by Michaels

And as to why it's okay for The Simpsons to have a theather movie and not HSM, it's dirt simple. Simpsons have lasted the test of time, being on air for 20 years now. They are perment icons in American pop culture. HSM is just the flavor of the month. Along with Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brothers, teens will forget all about it once Disney finds the next trend for kids to worship and spend their parents' money on. And just because one good, successful movie is made, doesn't mean it should spawn sequels like a rabbit in heat.

That's extremely stupid. First of all, you know why everyone is bashing this movie: Because everyone hates the success it's having! It's that simple! These movies aren't even that bad! All of the bashers have never seen these movies, I can tell you that. I saw the first one. IT WASN'T BAD. It was actually entertaining and the songs were really catchy.

Originally posted by RoadDogXVIII

While I doubt this movie should be in discussion (at RottenTomates.com, it holds a 60% average, and even trusted reviewer Brian Orndrof likes it), I highly hold you in the most esteem ever, HeadRAZZ, for putting the effort in.

Heck, I read the user reviews on IMDB.com, and they all share one thing in common: High School Musical is a negative portrayal of high school life. There's only pretty white and black kids in this film, with nary a normal-looking kid in sight. Now that may not be a problem if it has the gully to satirize it (the first Scary Movie was a slapstick fest, but it made pointed observations about crappy horror films featuring actors/actresses too old for the parts of teenagers), but because the whole endeavor is taken so seriously, anyone who's opposite on screen will have a negative outlook on life.

The second point is that Zac Efron and Vanessa Anne Hudgens are the least talented actors and actresses ever, and they're among the lines of overrated talentless teenagers coming out of the Disney Channel factory. Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if Efron winds up becoming the next Hayden Christensen (an insult to Christensen himself), and Mila Kunis looks ten zillion times more beautiful than Hudgens... AND SHE CAN ACT (there can be redemption after Max Payne). The fact that everyone looks up to these two crackers - along with Hannah Montana (or Miley Cyrus, or whatever she is these days) and the Jonas Brothers - is disheartening to the normal people out there who'll feel rejected because they are wise enough not to fall for this junk.

It makes me sick, and this is coming from someone who wined and dined on Disney films in the past.

I don't think HeadRazz actually had guts to put this movie on here. Why? EVERYONE is probably doing the same! I mean, Jesus, this movie had below a 3.0 on IMDb A WEEK or so before the movie was released! That's how much hate it's getting! Even people in my school hates it!

And your complaint about how this is creating a negative potrayal...please, that's just thinking up excuses for bashing this movie. First of all, MOST MOVIES have good looking people. The ONLY things I can think up that actually has diversity is LOST, Magnolia, and Lady in the Water! And this movie is pure fun! Nobody's going to see this and get upset because it's all happy and doesn't show the grim life of high school and emos and bullying and drugs and guns! It's a MUSICAL! It's supposed to be happy, fun, entertaining, etc!

Also, the couple aren't that bad. Have you seen Efron in Hairspray? He's also going to play H.G. Wells (sp?).



Somehow, I'm starting to wonder why many people here don't like you that much. But, hey, who am I to stop you from seeing a movie. That is your decision. As long as there's something crappy that can hopefully be turned into a good spoof material one day (YouTube, here I come). I'm just saying that I, and hopefully many others, don't buy into this fad that - as Michaels proclaimed - is gonna fade into obscurity along with Hannah Montana and the Jonas Borthers. Then we can return to normalcy.

I have more to say, but I better end it so I don't have to recieve any hate.


-------------
You think you know, but you have no idea.


Posted By: dipitlow555
Date Posted: October 24 2008 at 5:57pm
this movie WAS actually GOOD!


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 4:14am

This movie seems to have a curious polarizing effect. I would note here that while going to the theater last night to see Bill Maher's outstanding documentary Religulous, there was only one film people were lined up to see, and they were lined up nearly an hour before showtime. That movie wasn't Saw V, but rather HSM3. It should probably also be noted that HSM3 is getting generally favorable reviews, while Saw V is down in the 14% range at RT, definitely our target area.

We don't have children, but if we did, I'd permit them to see HSM3 without much reservation, while Satan would be playing hockey on home ice before I'd ever permit them to see movies like Saw V. I further suspect that come nomination time, this film won't be in any serious danger of receving further attention. Moreover, the license has proven so overwhelmingly successful the Disney people are bound to find a way to perpetuate it...HSM 4 The New Class or something of that order. So going forward, we'll probably just have to tolerate its existance and seek out more legitimate targets.

I'll give the Disney people one other point of credit: At least they stocked their musical with genuinely talented young people to carry the whole thing off. That stands in stark opposition to musicals like Momma Mia, which was patently guilty of casting on the basis of box-office appeal without much regard for whether or not the principles had much talent for singing and dancing. That made for some painful and even embarrassing moments. It is also wildly unfair to criticize the HSM series on the basis of unfair portrayal of high school experience, since they are nothing more than light entertainment, not an effort to express realistic teenage angst. I haven't seen any of these movies, but if someone gives me the opportunity to invest in the next one, I won't be able to get to my checkbook fast enough.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 7:31am
I just find it stupid that people would bash a franchise just because it's successful.

-------------


Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 9:50am

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: HSM3 isn't being bashed on our Forum because it's successful -- It's because it's arguably talent-free, it's aimed at a lowest-common-denominator audience, and this third installment is getting a theatrical release, when its two mediocre predecessors debuted on Disney Channel for FREE. 

In the industry, Disney has long had a reputation for being money-grubbing, formulaic and devoid of original ideas -- and this particular film personifies why... 

 



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 12:15pm

Originally posted by moviewizguy

I just find it stupid that people would bash a franchise just because it's successful.

I'm sorry, but you asked the question "Why is it okay for The Simpsons to have a theater motion picture adaptation, but not okay for HSM to have one?" I simply replied with the fact Simpsons is an entertainment icon. An icon that has won many Emmys and has even had the word "D'oh" added to the Oxford Dictionary. Based on my answering your question, you proclaimed me "extremely stupid".

As to why we bash this fanchise, in case you haven't noticed, we here at the Razzies hate Hollywood for making movies for the sole purpose of making money. If they release the third movie in a series that was originally shown on cable, chances are they're doing it just for money reasons. And when Hollywood is out solely for profit and nothing more, we at the Razzies will jump on it like we are now...



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 3:20pm

But it doesn't count if the movie turns out to be good... 

Originally posted by Michaels

And when Hollywood is out for profit and nothing more, we at the Razzies will jump on it like we are now.

 



-------------


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 4:48pm

Originally posted by moviewizguy

I just find it stupid that people would bash a franchise just because it's successful.

With all due respect, sometimes that is precisely the best reason to criticize something. I could spend the next hour citing examples of extremely successful films, books, TV shows, radio programs -- you name it -- that were unbelievably successful financially...but still crap.

I think that offering this movie up for consideration might have been just a little outre, but the financial and popular success of this series does seem incredibly disproportionate to the general quality (although I somewhat disagree with Headrazz's assessment that very little talented is represented. On the contrary, I think some very talented young performers were featured in this series).

I would also disagree with Michaels' suggestion that this movie was produced for the sole purpose of making money. Clearly, Disney is hauling it in hand over fist on this series, but based on the feedback I'm hearing from various sources, the target audiences ARE leaving the theater entertained. So evidently, the people who made this movie are giving their audience what they want. It isn't my cup of tea, and I'm a bit disturbed that something this airy can be so successful, but I'm not surprised. If there were no market for utterly mindless, anti-intellectual entertainment, America would have never heard of Rush Limbaugh.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 1:46am
Well, what it all comes down to is WHO is finding it entertaining or "good". According to HeadRazz, it's the "lowest-common-denominator", ie. teenage girls. I'm sure there were very young childern who thought the "Baby Geniuses" movies were a hoot, but that doesn't mean it was "good" for anyone else over the age of 5. Once man's junk is another man's treasure.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 9:19am

Originally posted by Michaels

Well, what it all comes down to is WHO is finding it entertaining or "good". According to HeadRazz, it's the "lowest-common-denominator", ie. teenage girls..

Best of wishes to you when you walk out your door tomorrow morning to find a large and very upset group of teenage girls awaiting outside, who aren't there coveting hugs and kisses. THAT is one group of people I'd personally be loathe to piss off. (There is an old addage the the REAL reason that men don't allow women in combat, especially young ones, is the realization that they are simply too vicious to play by the rules.)  Incidentally, I also think you are putting words into Head Razz's mouth here...

But let's bring this discussion to a rational perspective. Most of us here aren't fans of this license, but clearly, it has a pretty large audience. The critics weren't even particularly  harsh on this film, so let's let it be. There are going to be more of them, and sooner or later, the license is going to deteriorate to something truly worthy of our attention by pure force of inertia...but not this time.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: tomsmo35
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 1:44pm

Zac Efron is teaming up with   http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1800018621 - Matthew Perry   http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810038675/info - 17 Again  which looks like a remake of 18 Again here the trailer below.

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810038675/video/10360526 - http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810038675/video/10360526

 



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 3:37pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Best of wishes to you when you walk out your door tomorrow morning to find a large and very upset group of teenage girls awaiting outside, who aren't there coveting hugs and kisses. THAT is one group of people I'd personally be loathe to piss off. (There is an old addage the the REAL reason that men don't allow women in combat, especially young ones, is the realization that they are simply too vicious to play by the rules.)  Incidentally, I also think you are putting words into Head Razz's mouth here...

But let's bring this discussion to a rational perspective. Most of us here aren't fans of this license, but clearly, it has a pretty large audience. The critics weren't even particularly  harsh on this film, so let's let it be. There are going to be more of them, and sooner or later, the license is going to deteriorate to something truly worthy of our attention by pure force of inertia...but not this time.

Mind you, this group of teenage girl movie goers are also the reason "Titanic" is the #1 box office movie of all time. Whether you like HSM or not, the movie has gotten mainly good reviews, so like "W", while it was considered here as a contender, in the end it most likely wouldn't get a nod or "win" anything. Oh well, the "Saw" series will no doubt keep going; the torture may never end!



Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: November 05 2008 at 12:21pm
Look at the movie reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.  The critics there can't take a hint.  I mean 67%!?  This and their reviews for several movies that didn't deserve to get panned place Rotten Tomatoes as one of the three most corrupt movie critic websites in the world.  The other two are Metacritic basically for the same reason as RT, and Movie Preview Critic that believes in a nonexistent "Moviepocalypse" (I would also call you guys corrupt, but you're considered an organization and not just a website).


Posted By: moat
Date Posted: November 06 2008 at 11:22am
Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

(I would also call you guys corrupt, but you're considered an organization and not just a website).

Yeah, we're a pretty bad crowd. John Lasseter pays me in blow to come here and slam on other people's movies.

'Cause that's how much sway I have in this industry.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 06 2008 at 3:49pm

Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

Look at the movie reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.  The critics there can't take a hint.  I mean 67%!?  This and their reviews for several movies that didn't deserve to get panned place Rotten Tomatoes as one of the three most corrupt movie critic websites in the world. .

Miguel, you REALLY need to get over yourself. Rotten Tomatoes simply collects the reviews presented by critics and published in a variety of newspapers and magazines all over the country. Most of them are written and published almost simultaneously. When 67% of them offer similar opinions, it might just be worth considering that THEY aren't the ones having trouble taking a hint.

I'm not going to tell you that I am particularly a fan of this movie or series, but evidently, it really isn't bad enough for any further consideration by us. Deal with it and move on.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: November 08 2008 at 4:45pm

I will say that it's probably not worth nominating for Worst Picture, but nominating it for Worst Sequel will give The X-Files 2, Rambo 4, The Mummy 3, and The Clone Wars some serious competition.



Posted By: markk
Date Posted: November 09 2008 at 10:06pm
I agree with MiguelAntilsu, its not exactly the best film (in my view), but i'm not sure if it can be rated as the worst picture, there has got to be worse.

-------------


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 10 2008 at 2:41pm

Originally posted by markk

I agree with MiguelAntilsu, its not exactly the best film (in my view), but i'm not sure if it can be rated as the worst picture, there has got to be worse.

In that case, you agree with my position rather than that of Miquel who seems to regard this film as a crime against humanity.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: November 10 2008 at 3:16pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Originally posted by markk

I agree with MiguelAntilsu, its not exactly the best film (in my view), but i'm not sure if it can be rated as the worst picture, there has got to be worse.

In that case, you agree with my position rather than that of Miquel who seems to regard this film as a crime against humanity.

I didn't say that.



Posted By: markk
Date Posted: November 10 2008 at 8:41pm
It's not a crime against humanity, I wouldn't go that far -- I'm just saying that it is personally not a film that I would choose to watch.  But is by no means the worst film ever made. 

-------------


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 11 2008 at 2:46am

Originally posted by markk

It's not a crime against humanity, I wouldn't go that far -- I'm just saying that it is personally not a film that I would choose to watch.  But is by no means the worst film ever made. 

My point precisely. And while Miquel did not refer to the film as a crime against humanity, nor did I directly state that he did, he attempted to place it among the worst of the decade (yes, Miguel, you did say THAT) and if one overstates their case that magnificently, responses in kind are inbounds.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 19 2008 at 5:22am

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

 My point precisely. And while Miquel did not refer to the film as a crime against humanity, nor did I directly state that he did, he attempted to place it among the worst of the decade (yes, Miguel, you did say THAT) and if one overstates their case that magnificently, responses in kind are inbounds.

Although I don't like this HSM series, I wouldn't call it a crime against humanity, so much it getting the "powerhouse of annoyance" award. The dishonor of "crime against humanity" goes to "Postal" and/or "Disaster Movie". 



Posted By: kelemenmarc
Date Posted: December 22 2008 at 11:37pm
For Your Consideration:

Worst Actor in a Leading Role: Zack Efron (High School Musical 3 : Senior Year)
Worst Actor in a Supporting Role: Lucas Grabeel (High School Musical 3 : Senior Year)

-------------
FYC:
Worst Movie: The Bounty Hunter
Worst Actor: Johnny Depp (Alice in Wonderland / The Tourist)


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: December 23 2008 at 1:42am

I think if many people had their way, this flick would have nods in every catagory. 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: December 23 2008 at 12:41pm
Originally posted by Michaels

I think if many people had their way, this flick would have nods in every catagory. 

I think the teens generally outnumber the adults.



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: December 27 2008 at 1:54pm

Originally posted by moviewizguy

I think the teens generally outnumber the adults.

Not as Razzie voters.



Posted By: wolfee37
Date Posted: January 04 2009 at 10:37am

Why are you guys beign so harsh about this film? I have never seen nor do I plan on it but I like the fact that my sister has movies/music/tv shows made FOR her. Disney is far from being "Evil" they are incredibly smart buisness people and are actually doing good. These kids are watching shows and movies with good role models. Kids who are polite, smart, and are take pride in their apperance (and are not white suburban kids dressed up as gangsters). It may make us sick, but we have Superbad that shows us what high shcool is really like, and young kids have High School Musical. Not sure about you guys but I would rather my nine year old  sister turning out like "Gabriella" then any of the girls in Superbad.  And I saw Hairspray with my girlfriend and Zac Efron was actually pretty good in it (just thought I would throw that out here)

HeadRazz what do you think about that?



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 04 2009 at 11:34am
Originally posted by wolfee37

Why are you guys beign so harsh about this film?

Because we see it for what it really is: a soulless money-making attempt buy a studio with no intention of making a quality movie that will last the test of time, but rather to cash in on the latest teen fad. Sorry, wolf, but "Superbad" was a much more REAL look at high school, and we at the Razzies prefer it that way.



Posted By: wolfee37
Date Posted: January 10 2009 at 6:38am

Yeah but these films are not targeted at teenagers. They were targeted for little kids and pre teens -- and they were succesful at it.

Do I like Superbad over HSM? f**k yes. But the songs were catchy and the film wasn't that long, so parents (or older brothers) were able to bear it. And the critics liked it!  



-------------


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 10 2009 at 11:12am

Originally posted by wolfee37

Do I like Superbad over HSM? f**k yes. But the songs were catchy and the film wasn't that long, so parents (or older brothers) were able to bear it. And the critics liked it!  

The common defense for this movie is "the songs are catchy". Okay, so don't pay to see the movie, just buy the soundtrack instead.



Posted By: wolfee37
Date Posted: January 11 2009 at 4:27am
Originally posted by Michaels

The common defense for this movie is "the songs are catchy". Okay, so don't pay to see the movie, just buy the soundtrack instead.

The songs are cathy doesnt mean I am going to buy the soundtrack and dance in my room to it. Plus musicals are just fun to watch seeing people dance and sing and sh*t. But then why did the critics like it, its positive on Rottentomatoes, and you guys ususally pick on movies that are REALLY rotten on there. So why would you pik this movie that is positive. None of you have probably never seen the movie anyways.



Posted By: wolfee37
Date Posted: January 11 2009 at 4:28am
Oh and I am not some freaky High School Musical Fan, I just apretiate what the film was trying to accomplish.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: January 11 2009 at 11:21am
Originally posted by Michaels

The common defense for this movie is "the songs are catchy". Okay, so don't pay to see the movie, just buy the soundtrack instead.

That's like saying there's no need to watch musicals because you can just buy the soundtrack...and that's just stupid.



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 11 2009 at 11:44am

Originally posted by moviewizguy

That's like saying there's no need to watch musicals because you can just buy the soundtrack...and that's just stupid.

Stupid? I don't think so. Do you really need to see people breaking out into dance in unison? If that's your thing, just watch music videos, don't pay $10 to see that crap.



Posted By: markk
Date Posted: January 12 2009 at 3:24am
I'm not trying to sit on the fence over this, I just want to say that everybody has their own opinion and so we should all just agree to disagree.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: February 17 2009 at 2:10am
I think it's fair that this didn't get any Razzie nods because I think the South Park episode that parodied it pretty much gave it the come-uppance that it needed: Girls were into it even more so because they liked the guys in it than beause of the music/dancing, etc. Guys got into it because they thought it would help them get girls. By the end of the episode the fad had faded.
And Mr. Queermo went ssslap happy.


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: February 19 2009 at 5:07pm
There is still a chance that this film may get trashed:  Buzznet.com's Music Razzies may give it the death sentence.


Posted By: RoadDogXVIII
Date Posted: February 20 2009 at 4:57am
HeadRAZZ, if you dedicated a forum for everyone to blast HSM, are you gonna do the same for the forthcoming Jonas Bros. concert film and the Hannah Montana movie? Because those are just deserving for critical scud missiles.

-------------
You think you know, but you have no idea.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: February 20 2009 at 10:21am
To make the matter of HSM3 not getting a single Razzie nod worse, now word is that Zack Efron and Vanessa Hudgens will be part of a song and dance number during the Oscars. Ugh!!!


Posted By: movieluver
Date Posted: February 21 2009 at 8:13am
it should've been nominated for worst actress and worst screen couple.
zac effron is okay, i guess.
and i suppose this film overdoes cliqiues and characters.
they should finish it with everyone dies

-------------
once a movie lover, always a movie lover


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 23 2009 at 3:13pm

I would like to quote a famous painter, Pierre August Renoir, who said the following: "For me a picture must be an amiable thing, joyous and pretty -- yes, pretty! There are enough troublesome things in life without inventing others." Agree to disagree. 

Originally posted by RoadDogXVIII

While I doubt this movie should be in discussion (at RottenTomates.com, it holds a 60% average, and even trusted reviewer Brian Orndrof likes it), I highly hold you in the most esteem ever, HeadRAZZ, for putting the effort in.

Heck, I read the user reviews on IMDB.com, and they all share one thing in common: High School Musical is a negative portrayal of high school life. There's only pretty white and black kids in this film, with nary a normal-looking kid in sight. Now that may not be a problem if it has the gully to satirize it (the first Scary Movie was a slapstick fest, but it made pointed observations about crappy horror films featuring actors/actresses too old for the parts of teenagers), but because the whole endeavor is taken so seriously, anyone who's opposite on screen will have a negative outlook on life.

The second point is that Zac Efron and Vanessa Anne Hudgens are the least talented actors and actresses ever, and they're among the lines of overrated talentless teenagers coming out of the Disney Channel factory. Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if Efron winds up becoming the next Hayden Christensen (an insult to Christensen himself), and Mila Kunis looks ten zillion times more beautiful than Hudgens... AND SHE CAN ACT (there can be redemption after Max Payne). The fact that everyone looks up to these two crackers - along with Hannah Montana (or Miley Cyrus, or whatever she is these days) and the Jonas Brothers - is disheartening to the normal people out there who'll feel rejected because they are wise enough not to fall for this junk.

It makes me sick, and this is coming from someone who wined and dined on Disney films in the past.

 



-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 23 2009 at 3:16pm

You idiot! I'm talking about films like Chicago and Moulin Rouge! It doesn't take a genius to figure out I'm not talking about the HSM films. 

Originally posted by Michaels

Stupid? I don't think so. Do you really need to see people breaking out into dance in unison? If that's your thing, just watch music videos, don't pay $10 to see that crap.

 



-------------


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: May 23 2009 at 10:55pm

Grow the hell up kid! I'm done with you and calling people idiots. You have no credibilty around here to be calling anyone idiots. News flash, punk - you're not smarter than anyone here. ANYone. GTFO of here, and go troll on some other site. I'm done with you.

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: You may be through with him, but I often find moviewizeguy and his "totally counterpoint" postings on our Forum to be amusingly stimulating (as well as usually devoid of any logic or merit).

As for anyone telling anyone else to "GTFO of here," that sentiment is both extreme and inappropriate. While I almost never agreee with anything moviewizeguy posts, I am also aware that, to remain a vital Forum, we must continue to at tolerate (and I would argue, welcome) viewspoints and tastes divergent from our own...



-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 24 2009 at 2:07am

Wow. I thought my argument was valid. Buying a soundtrack from a musical ruins the point of watching musicals in the first place. If you think otherwise, I don't know what to say to you... 

Originally posted by dEd Grimley


Grow the hell up kid. I'm done with you and calling people idiots. You have no credibilty around here to be calling people idiots. News flash, punk - you're not smarter than anyone here. ANYone. GTFO of here, and go troll on some other site. I'm done with you.

 



-------------


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: May 24 2009 at 6:47am

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: You may be through with him, but I often find moviewizeguy and his "totally counterpoint" postings on our Forum to be amusingly stimulating (as well as usually devoid of any logic or merit).

As for anyone telling anyone else to "GTFO of here," that sentiment is both extreme and inappropriate. While I almost never agreee with anything moviewizeguy posts, I am also aware that, to remain a vital Forum, we must continue to at tolerate (and I would argue, welcome) viewspoints and tastes divergent from our own...

I agree with teh idea of having divergent views being a necessity to keeping the forums vital, I do have to argue that having the person with the divergent view constantly make their point by calling people "Idiot" or "Moron" or just calling then "Stupid" is not at all a good way to keep a forum going.

While the "GTFO" sentiment may be seen as a little extreme, and perhaps it is, more civil methods have thus far failed to curb the tide of pointless name-calling and ad hominem attacks. It is rather frustrating to attempt to have a conversation with others when you know you are going to be called an idiot for thinking the Happening was crap.

So while yes, I agree with you, that there is a definant need for new life, and divergent views, I think that we need divergent views that are NOT going to stopp to insulting us for not agreeing with those views...

Just thought I'd post my thoughts on the subject, sir.



-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: May 24 2009 at 9:59am
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

Grow the hell up kid! I'm done with you and calling people idiots. You have no credibilty around here to be calling anyone idiots. News flash, punk - you're not smarter than anyone here. ANYone. GTFO of here, and go troll on some other site. I'm done with you.


<FONT face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size=3>RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: You may be through with him, but I often find moviewizeguy and his "totally counterpoint" postings on our Forum to be amusingly stimulating (as well as usually devoid of any logic or merit).


<FONT face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size=3>As for anyone telling anyone else to "GTFO of here," that sentiment is both extreme and inappropriate. While I almost never agreee with anything moviewizeguy posts, I am also aware that, to remain a vital Forum, we must continue to at tolerate (and I would argue, welcome) viewspoints and tastes divergent from our own...


I'm refering to the myriad times he's called people idiots. Even in the post to which I was referring back to, he was calling what Michaels had said "stupid." I've defended his right to have a different opinion many, many, many, many times. I completely agree with having counterpoint opinions. But to that end, I'm more opposed to childish name-calling. It's not my site, but I'm not going to aknowledge a person who calls everyone else here stupid.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: May 24 2009 at 10:01am
And I forgot, we have Miguel if we need a differing opinion, and he's always civil and comports himself like an adult.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: May 24 2009 at 11:50am
I'm cutting all ties with moviewizguy. As Bale said, "We're f'ing done professionally". I'm not answering any of his posts any more. I've gone on for entire ten paragraph long posts about what he does wrong that makes him lose credit with us, that doesn't stop him for calling people idiots, morons, etc. (even in a post that was FOUR or FIVE months old). As HeadRazz said, his posts have little, if any logic or merit, but as dEd said, Miguel has more maturity. I understand we should have counter opinions, but this kid just seems to disagree with us just for the sake of disagreeing with us, and that's called a troll, and trolls usually get banned. But hey, that's just one' person's opinion.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 25 2009 at 1:54am

Originally posted by Michaels

I'm cutting all ties with moviewizguy. As Bale said, "We're f'ing done professionally". I'm not answering any of his posts any more. I've gone on for entire ten paragraph long posts about what he does wrong that makes him lose credit with us, that doesn't stop him for calling people idiots, morons, etc. (even in a post that was FOUR or FIVE months old). As HeadRazz said, his posts have little, if any logic or merit, but as dEd said, Miguel has more maturity. I understand we should have counter opinions, but this kid just seems to disagree with us just for the sake of disagreeing with us, and that's called a troll, and trolls usually get banned. But hey, that's just one' person's opinion.

So you seriously think that everyone should buy a soundtrack instead of watching a musical? That's the whole point here. You're arguing that all you need for musicals is to buy their soundtracks. Well, I'm sticking to my point: That ruins the whole concept of musicals in the first place. If you think otherwise, I don't know how "The Sound of Music," "Grease," "Mamma Mia," "Rent," "Annie," etc will be successful. Your logic is flawed, obviously, and I can see you using excuses to diverge from the topic. This, being one of them. If you seriously think everyone should buy soundtracks instead of watching the film, why don't you explain? You're the one who's equally as guilty when you bash when providing no reasons in the first place. Thus, you're the troll. I'm just simply questioning your logic but I'm not surprised you haven't hit on the topic so far.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 25 2009 at 1:57am
Originally posted by CriticalFrank

I agree with teh idea of having divergent views being a necessity to keeping the forums vital, I do have to argue that having the person with the divergent view constantly make their point by calling people "Idiot" or "Moron" or just calling then "Stupid" is not at all a good way to keep a forum going.

While the "GTFO" sentiment may be seen as a little extreme, and perhaps it is, more civil methods have thus far failed to curb the tide of pointless name-calling and ad hominem attacks. It is rather frustrating to attempt to have a conversation with others when you know you are going to be called an idiot for thinking the Happening was crap.

So while yes, I agree with you, that there is a definant need for new life, and divergent views, I think that we need divergent views that are NOT going to stopp to insulting us for not agreeing with those views...

Just thought I'd post my thoughts on the subject, sir.

By defending Michaels, you're defending his views on where musicals stand. So you agree that everyone must buy soundtracks to a musical rather than watching the musical? I don't see the logic in that. How can you not call someone an idiot when someone says such an outrageous and rediculous thing like that? Exactly. It's as if a horror movie shouldn't scare or a comedy shouldn't make people laugh. It's illogical.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 25 2009 at 1:59am

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

I'm refering to the myriad times he's called people idiots. Even in the post to which I was referring back to, he was calling what Michaels had said "stupid." I've defended his right to have a different opinion many, many, many, many times. I completely agree with having counterpoint opinions. But to that end, I'm more opposed to childish name-calling. It's not my site, but I'm not going to aknowledge a person who calls everyone else here stupid.

Me calling people stupid is exactly the same as questioning someone's views on something. Michaels have done the same thing to me. He just implies that I'm stupid, which is equally the same of what I'm doing. And there's a difference between offering an opinion and disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. Obviously, saying one should just buy the soundtrack for a musical rather than watching the musical is disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing because that ruins the whole point of a musical in the first place. I know you'll ignore me, as well as a few others, but you have to see where I stand. How can you seriously defend Michaels for saying such an outrageous thing like that? It's not even funny. And I only call people idiots if I'm truly angry. Obviously, Michaels comment made me genuinely angry. I'm sorry if I acted out of hand.



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: May 25 2009 at 2:31am
If someone is an idiot in your opinion you need to preface that every time you use it. Because it's not a term that implies opinion. Consider the following:
"You are a nice person"
"I like corn"
Which comes across as an opinion, and which comes across as something that's an implied truth?
Michaels argument is that there's no need to see a movie if you just like the songs. That you can just buy the soundtrack.
You say (one of many times) that that's just stupid.
He responds with something to the effect that you can just watch a music video if you want to see people dancing to music. Perhaps to imply that the fact that musicals have been less successful since the 80's has been the rise of the music video.
And then, you call him an idiot for having that opinion. Not only that, for not considering that you may have been talking about other musicals, such as Moulin Rouge or Chicago. As if to discount the title movie of this thread, and the focal point of it's discussion as an example.
Now, I, and others, have asked you multiple times to quit using words like "idiot" and "stupid" to refer to other members of the site. You've said that you wouldn't use them, yet continue to do so.
I realize that this isn't my site, and I don't have any recourse but to ignore you. I agree with HeadRazz that arguing with you is fun, when you keep things civil. I feel like I hold up my end when doing so. I'm not tolerating "idiot" anymore, though.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: May 25 2009 at 10:30am
Originally posted by moviewizguy

By defending Michaels, you're defending his views on where musicals stand. So you agree that everyone must buy soundtracks to a musical rather than watching the musical? I don't see the logic in that. How can you not call someone an idiot when someone says such an outrageous and rediculous thing like that? Exactly. It's as if a horror movie shouldn't scare or a comedy shouldn't make people laugh. It's illogical.

I was actually standing up for dEd. I personally am a big fan of theater, and have seen a number of musicals performed live.

And, I want to applaud you here. I am very grateful that you have managed to make your point without overtly insulting anyone. I'm glad you have made this effort. If you could voice your opinions in such a fashion more often, I am sure you would get a lot less anger from other members of the board. We may not always agree with what you say, but If you say it right, we will discuss.

Let's hope this is a new beginning for you.



-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: May 26 2009 at 12:18am
Originally posted by moviewizguy


How can you not call someone an idiot when someone says such an outrageous and rediculous thing like that?



I didn't see that line earlier. It's very easy. It's called being an adult. And with that, you've pretty much proven my point.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: May 26 2009 at 12:27am

Originally posted by dEd Grimley



I didn't see that line earlier. It's very easy. It's called being an adult. And with that, you've pretty much proven my point.

I guess I missed that line, too... otherwise I would have had to point out that it is spelled "Ridiculous" ...small pet peeve of mine.

However, I thought that he had managed to express himself in a much more civilized and adult manner, and I had hoped to encourage such expressions...



-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: May 26 2009 at 2:27am
He can, but he seems to have to make an effort to do so. Now, I do as well... You guys have no idea how much I dial it down for this site (almost as much as I do when I do politics). But it's not that hard to NOT write idiot. He's tried to stop before, and he keeps slipping it in. And when he uses the argument "how can you not call him an idiot," that implies that he doesn't think what he's doing is inappropriate.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: May 26 2009 at 9:28am

You have a good point there, dEd. However, I still want to try and encourage a more civilized behavior. Even if it is only marginally more civilized, and shows a total lack of realization that what was done was wrong. I mean it may be a long process, but I think given time, and proper encouragement, we can make MWG someone who can post his alternative views, and stimulate discussion without insulting and alienating all others on the board. Then again, maybe I am just an optimist.

As far as dialing it down, do the topics covered here get you that worked up? I know I have personally seen a few movies that I enjoyed being scewered on this site, I just swallow my desire to defend the film, and will generally jump in and try to make light of things. I figure, just because a movie I like is considered "bad" doesn't change the fact that I enjoyed it. 

But seriously, don't let this stuff get you worked up. It's bad for the blood pressure.



-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 26 2009 at 10:38am

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

He can, but he seems to have to make an effort to do so. Now, I do as well... You guys have no idea how much I dial it down for this site (almost as much as I do when I do politics). But it's not that hard to NOT write idiot. He's tried to stop before, and he keeps slipping it in. And when he uses the argument "how can you not call him an idiot," that implies that he doesn't think what he's doing is inappropriate.

Well, being a fan of musicals, I founded Michael's comment a bit offensive and insulting. Thus, I couldn't hold in the anger.



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: May 26 2009 at 4:24pm
Originally posted by CriticalFrank

You have a good point there, dEd. However, I still want to try and encourage a more civilized behavior. Even if it is only marginally more civilized, and shows a total lack of realization that what was done was wrong. I mean it may be a long process, but I think given time, and proper encouragement, we can make MWG someone who can post his alternative views, and stimulate discussion without insulting and alienating all others on the board. Then again, maybe I am just an optimist.


As far as dialing it down, do the topics covered here get you that worked up? I know I have personally seen a few movies that I enjoyed being scewered on this site, I just swallow my desire to defend the film, and will generally jump in and try to make light of things. I figure, just because a movie I like is considered "bad" doesn't change the fact that I enjoyed it. 


But seriously, don't let this stuff get you worked up. It's bad for the blood pressure.



1) In my opinion, I've given him more than enough chances.
2) I don't mean that they make me mad, I just mean that I can have a very, very, very vile sense of humor. I'm refraining from excessive vulgarity and body part jokes.
3) Again, it's not that I'm getting worked up or mad, I'm just not in the mood to tolerate repeated name calling on a (relatively) civilized forum. I know we sorta just screw around a lot, but we're not insulting anyone who's going to read anything here. Unless for some reason Uwe or Paris decided to lurk around.
Michael Bay, on the other hand, I feel I'd be happy to insult to his face. And Costner, obviously.
Quick sidenote: Do you realize how many Costner films have actually been nominated for Razzies? I was looking at the list of all of the Worst Picture nominees since 1980... He's well represented. So for those who wonder why I put so much on him, I offer this: I was right.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: May 27 2009 at 12:27am

I can't help but try to give people more chances, I'm a sort of optimistic pessimist. I tend to lean towards teh negative, but I am constantly trying to find the good in people... which is not to say I have never given up trying to find good, but it takes longer then the 3 months I have been posting here for me to get to that point.

And my humor tends to have to be toned down less then my language. When talking with peers, I can be about as foul-mouthed as a Kevin Smith movie... Hell, at work last night, between me and my pharmacist, I swear we dropped the F-bomb at least 3 or 4 dozen times... it was like a damned Christian Bale monologue....

And I have no problem insulting people, in face to face dealings. That way people can tell if I am really and truly pissed, or just joking. Which is probably why I try to use as many emotes as I do. Written words can be really....sterile, and lack the emotional emphasis that facial features, and vocal inflection can lend to a sentence.

Kevin Costner deserves some kind of Lifetime Underachievement Award!



-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: May 27 2009 at 12:53am
Well again, many chances, many disappointments.

I wouldn't mind seeing Costner getting a Lifetime Punchinthegroin Award.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: May 27 2009 at 12:57am

Lifetime Punchinthegroin Award? Wasn't that originally called "Waterworld?"



-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: May 27 2009 at 3:45am
I need to watch Waterworld and The Postman back to back someday, but I think Postman was 10x worse off the top of my head.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: May 27 2009 at 10:18am
If Postman was 10x worse then Waterworld... I never want to watch Postman....

-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: May 29 2009 at 7:34pm
I don't know if I've told this story before, but I watched about the second half of The Postman when I was in college, because I came home and my roommate in my dorm was watching it. It's your typical "Costner starts off doing something simple, like being a post-apocalyptic postman, and he somehow becomes the inspiration to all survivors, the mail becomes the most important thing in the world, and the evil badguy government entity wants to git'im. And then Tom Petty showed up for some reason. In the end, they make a statue of Costner riding a horse at blazing speeds trying to hand someone a letter. I can almost guarantee Costner has it at his house.
Anyway, after the movie was done, my roommate says, "What a great movie!" and I mentally facepalmed my hands through the back of my skull, while outwardly giving the most forced half-smile and nod of my entire life. My roommate was a good guy, but that movie was about as bad as anything I've ever seen.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: May 30 2009 at 12:23am
i can relate to the roommate with odd taste stories... I had a roomie that thought that Pokemon were the highest form of art... He had a few screws loose, I think...

-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: May 30 2009 at 7:33pm
Pokemon was kinda funny for a couple of minutes. I remember being in HS and during like the.. Senior play, I tried to get some people to go see the first Pokemovie with me, but no one would go. I was at least 6 years older or 15 years younger than anyone else in the theater.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: May 31 2009 at 12:23am

I think that cements it, you win the title of Movie Masochist... I don't think I could top that...



-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: June 01 2009 at 12:26pm
The Pokemon movie wasn't all THAT bad. The little "Pokemon Island" short that played before it was.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 15 2010 at 3:42pm
The first one was good.The second one...neh.This one was good mainly for fans(adults included),'cuz all of the closure.

The soundtrack isn't that good,not just compared to the other ones.

One would think they take advantage of goin'from TV to theater to improve the musical numbers,but ehy really don't.The perfect example is the I WANT IT ALL number,even if it's showed as a play on purpose.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 15 2010 at 6:20pm
Originally posted by Vits

The first one was good.The second one...neh.This one was good mainly for fans(adults included),'cuz all of the closure.

The soundtrack isn't that good,not just compared to the other ones.

One would think they take advantage of goin'from TV to theater to improve the musical numbers,but ehy really don't.The perfect example is the I WANT IT ALL number,even if it's showed as a play on purpose.
Please tell me you have children, because you do see (and defend) ALOT of movies aimed at little kids and teens.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 16 2010 at 6:16am
Did you read what I posted?I'm not defendin'this.And I don't have children.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 16 2010 at 10:53am
Originally posted by Vits

Did you read what I posted?I'm not defendin'this.And I don't have children.
Okay, I'm glad you're not defending it, but you do see alot of kids/teen movies.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 16 2010 at 1:10pm
1)I defended the first "H.S.M.",which is an Emmy winner,and not just in the "Children Program" categories.
2)I know I'm not an expert nor an official critic,but I still like reviewing movies,so I try to watch movies of ev'ry kind.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: June 23 2010 at 3:36pm
I've finally given ratings to the trilogy,and they all got ***/*****.#1 got a C(60%),and #2 and 3 got a C-(50%).

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: June 23 2010 at 6:36pm
Originally posted by Vits

I've finally given ratings to the trilogy,and they all got ***/*****.#1 got a C(60%),and #2 and 3 got a C-(50%).
That's reasonable.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.



Print Page | Close Window